Understanding Technology

Understanding Technology:

 What is Equalisation, and how has it changed the working process since the early days of studio recording and mixing?

Equalisation or EQing is the manipulating of frequency bands to create a balance in frequencies desired by the mixer. Using EQing software or an analogue EQ the mixer can isolate certain frequency ranges and either increase or decrease them in volume. This would alter the sound to some degree (something the mixer would wish to do).

Equalising has massively affected the recording and mixing process as it allows a mixer/producer to edit the frequencies manually rather than having to search around for a microphone that supported their desired frequency range. During periods like the 1950s (when Sinatra, Martin and King Cole were recording) they would have to go on a scavenger hunt in order to find the microphone that suited their vocals/instruments best and came out on their record as effectively as possible. There is no need for this nowadays as frequency ranges can be widened by being altered by either an analogue or digital EQ.

Back then a popular microphone was the RCA 44 for its mellow tone (good for deeper vocals) however it may not fulfill all the tasks a producer would like. A 44 has a frequency range of 50Hz - 15kHz which, whilst being able to pick up instruments with a lower end (kick drum, tom) may fail to pick up the shinier instruments (hats, higher vocals) to full effect. Whilst that would remain the same today, the ability to EQ has dramatically increased a producers potential by giving them the opportunity to highlight and increase frequencies that may not have been picked up well during recording, making the recording process less stressful and much easier. 


What is the Polar Pattern called that the U47 used for recording vocals? What is the Polar Pattern of the other microphone that was used previously? Why do you think the directional ability of the U47 helped in the recording process in this particular case?

According to Frank Sinatra's producer the Neumann U47 was heavily used in recording his vocals, his reasoning for this was its ability to pick up Sinatra's vocals effectively. Clearly the U47 had a cardioid polar pattern as it managed to focus on the instrument in front (vocals) rather than the instruments behind (the orchestra) as well as the front.

The RCA 44 had a bi-directional polar pattern which meant it picked up the sounds from both in front and behind it whilst ignoring the sounds either side. This can be very effective if recording 2 things opposite each other, similar to interviews (a person either side of the microphone).

The introduction of the U47 to Sinatra's recording sessions meant that his vocals were isolated, producing clear results by ignoring the surrounding instruments. This would ultimately make mixing Sinatra's vocals much easier as it would be just one clear recording rather than a recording possibly interrupted by other instruments. If a 44 was used, although it may pick up Sinatra's vocals to a reasonable degree, it could be polluted by the sounds of the instruments opposite him.

Identify some of the differences between a software mixer (like the one in 'Logic') and a hardware mixing console (like the 'Audient Zen' mixing desk in the studios).

The main difference between a software mixer and hardware mixer are the abilities it gives the producer/mixer. Whilst analogue (hardware) equipment is efficient, it doesn't offer detailed and specific visual reference. For example if a software compressor (like in Logic) was used a producer/mixer would be able to see precise numbers of compression (on the threshold, knee, ratio etc) which could result in detailed outcomes without as much effort as a hardware compressor. In order to achieve good results from a hardware mixer, the producer would have to have a great ear (as they would with a software mixer, but the ability to use it is key) as 0 - little visual evidence as to whether your sound has changed is provided.

However, I understand that a lot of producers enjoy being able to put their good ear to use and would love having a hardware mixer (like the Audient Zen) in their studio as it appears more professional. Also, a benefit to having a hardware mixer is its simplicity, everything a producer needs is there right in front of their face as opposed to having to switch between several different windows they have opened in Logic, this will give them the ability to edit sounds using multiple plugins without having to open tons of windows. It's also a very hands on piece of equipment and could make a nice change from a session being so digitally orientated.

If you were investing in a system to use in a home/bedroom studio, which type of mixer would you personally choose, software of hardware? Why?

Seeing as the system will feature in a home/bedroom studio, size would be a major factor. Whilst I would prefer a hardware mixer (for aesthetic reasons) it would take up a lot of space, something that could be a major factor into organising a studio. A hardware mixer would be an amazing piece of kit to have in a studio as it offers the ability to utilise certain mixing and producing skills that wouldn't be available if mixing digitally (such as putting my ear to good use and making it a nice change from what could be a digitally orientated recording session).

However, due to size, a hardware mixer wouldn't be a great idea as it would take up too much room, room that could be used to store other equipment that doesn't offer a digital equivalent (microphones etc). Whist a hardware mixer is professional-looking, its software counterpart offers almost identical mixing abilities.

I would personally choose a software mixer as it offers similar/almost identical capabilities whilst saving vital room to store relevant equipment, which would, in turn, give me (the producer) the ability to fully utilise the space I'm in (for recording, usually).

However, some hardware mixers can be a lot smaller. A suitable one for this studio could be a 4 input hardware mixer, which offers the same capabilities (EQ, Compressor, noise gate) as the 16 input ones we have in the professional studios. These would be suitable for a small bedroom/home studio as it takes up hardly any room.

I would choose a software mixer over a hardware one as it is all incorporated into the Logic and doesn't involve looking back and forth from the screen to a piece of equipment.   

What other benefits do using DI boxes give an engineer in the studio?

DI boxes can give a studio engineer/producer/mixer the opportunity to record an instrument, clean, without interference from any other sounds in the studio. For example, if a studio contains an electric guitar, drum kit and several vocalists (I have recorded in a similar situation), a DI box can record an extra instrument (I recorded an electric piano) without the possibility of the final result being polluted by the sounds from other instruments that were close by in recording, providing for easier mixing.

A DI box allows an engineer to balance out a live level signal into microphone level signal, almost acting as a microphone (in a recording sense) but much more clean. The signal will run from the instrument to the DI box via a jack cable and the microphone level signal will run into the mixer via a standard XLR cable. 


What would you suggest?

If you ensure or buy cardioid polar pattern drum mics and face them away from your PA system it will minimise the amount of sound bleed you will obtain from your speakers. The fact that you have dynamic drum mics is good as they are less sensitive than condenser ones and won't pick up your speakers if they are either quiet or a bit away from your drums.  


It seems you have a problem with the sound from your speakers bleeding into your nearby microphones. I would advise you to invest in a jamhub mixer, this will give you the opportunity to hear different instruments (like the vocals as you wish, or the instrument you play) through headphones as opposed to the speakers blaring throughout your studio interfering with other recordings. Mic up everything as you would (the 5 on the drums, and the rest as you wish), you would have to route the output of your vocals through your Alesis Multimix and into the hub so you and your band mates can hear the vocals without the use of the speakers. Another way to avoid sound bleed in such a small space is to use things like bed sheets or blankets (quilts maybe, they're thicker) to surround certain instruments and isolate the sounds, not the most professional of ways to deal with things and it isn't always effective but it is a cheaper alternative to purchasing professional screens designed for such uses.